alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DRAFT TFM TImeline

FY 2024 TFM 2-4700 Timeline* Date Comments

DRAFT #1

Internal Stakeholder Review (March -June)

Send out prior year version for review & comments to FRAD and GFAB 6/1/2023

Set up meetings with entities to discuss guidance changesSet up meetings with GAO to discuss guidance changesProvide a monthly status to CRT members.Internal Stakeholder comments due date 6/23/2023

DRAFT #2

Stakeholders Review

Send out Draft #2 for comment to the following: APC (via email)OFAS & OMB copies of TFM for review (via email)Audit community (via email). Kelly McFadden is the POC & she will distribute the documents to the audit community.Graphics and Printing (email)Federal entities (MAX.gov) Set up CRT meeting to discuss changes f

Stakeholders comments due date (COB) 7/21/2023TFM POCs incorporated any applicable changes into their assigned appendices. 7/25-7/28Management Review - Draft #2 Stakeholder comments 7/31 to 8/4 Signatures required from FRAD management 

DRAFT #3

GAO Review

Send out Draft #3 to GAO (via email) 8/7/2023GAO comments due date 8/25/2023TFM POCs incorporated any applicable changes into their assigned appendices. 8/28 to 9/1Management Review - Draft #3 GAO comments 9/5 to 9/11 Signatures required from FRAD management 

Final Draft

Master copy given to TFM Editors & OCC 9/13/2023

 TFM Coordinator provides Final TFM for website Receive and coordinate any additional comments and Editors changes Execute final review before publicationTFM workflow is approved by all parties 9/29/2023 TFM Editors post to the website Have GLAB set up an email blast. 

Authorize the GTAS system administrators to send users a global notification 

that the 2023 TFM is published. 11/16/2023

6/27 to 7/7

7/10/2023

Management Review - Draft #1 comments. Any discrepancies or changes Signatures required from FRAD management 

1
**Chart of Accounts IRC Meeting Handout**

· 195000 Lessee Right-To-Use Lease Asset & 195900 – Accumulated Amortization on Lessee Lease Assets USSGL’s will be moved from the Other Assets category to the Property, Plant, and Equipment category.

· USSGL 233000 – Unearned Lessor Revenue will be moved from the Other Liabilities category to the Unearned Revenue category.

· USSGL 214010 - Unfunded Accrued Interest Payable will be moved from the Other Liabilities category to the Accrued Liabilities – other category.

· USSGL 220500 – Liability for Unearned Insurance Premiums will be moved from Accrued Liabilities – Other category to the Unearned Revenue category.

· USSGL 221100 – Withholdings Payable will be moved from the Accrued Liabilities – Payroll & Benefits category to the Other Liabilities category.

· USSGL 222500 - Unfunded FECA Liability will be moved from the Accrued Liabilities – Payroll & Benefits category to the Accrued Liabilities – Other category.

These changes are being made to better place the definitions of the accounts with their proper grouping on the Chart of Accounts. The Chart of Accounts provides basic structure to General Ledger accounts and this in no way effects their lines on the crosswalks.

February IRC Handout		DRAFT
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6473
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLAUDE ST. JUSTE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-4-BR, CA-97-137-5-BR) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Claude St. Juste, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. St. Juste , Nos. CR-95-4-BR; CA-97-137-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Part 2, Section I: Chart of Accounts

The Chart of Accounts provides the basic structure for the U.S. Standard General Ledger (USSGL). It

incorporates both proprietary and budgetary accounts. The proprietary and budgetary sets of general ledger

accounts are self-balancing (the total debits equal total credits). It is important to note that central agency

reporting requires a lower level of detail than the 6-digit USSGL account numbers provided. Therefore, the

USSGL Board developed attributes containing various domain values that, when added to a basic 6-digit

USSGL account, provide the appropriate level of detail needed for central agency reporting and, in effect,

create new USSGL accounts. See Section IV for attribute definitions and domain values. It is this lower

level of detail, the basic 6-digit USSGL account plus applicable attribute domain values, that agencies must

capture at the transaction level to (1) comply with USSGL policy, and (2) achieve the desired result for

proper reporting.

The basic 6-digit USSGL accounts are classified as follows:

 100000 Assets

 200000 Liabilities

 300000 Net Position

 400000 Budgetary

 500000 Revenue and Other Financing Sources

 600000 Expenses

 700000 Gains/Losses/Miscellaneous Items

 800000 Memorandum

Agencies may expand this numbering system to as many digits as necessary to accommodate agencyspecific requirements. However, subsidiary accounts must summarize or “roll up” to the 6-digit USSGL

accounts plus any related attributes.

In February 1999, the USSGL Board voted to delete summary accounts. However, agencies may

summarize accounts as they find useful. Section headings replace many of the deleted summary accounts

to maintain the integrity of the account structure.

Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

September 25, 1951

No. 55902.

protests 126167-K/921, etc. (Chicago).

#### American Express Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that- the items of merchandise marked “A” or “B” on the invoices consist of watch movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the items marked *“A”*were held properly dutiable at the base rate of 90 cents each as watch movements more than 1 inch but less than 1.77 inches wide, and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at $1.20 each as watch movements more than Mo of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
Part 1, Section V: USSGL Crosswalks to Standard 

External Reports

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2023 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map

USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with current reporting guidance from the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and the 

Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).

Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or

column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This

subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional

information on attributes.

All crosswalks require pre-closing USSGL account balances.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by

OMB and Fiscal Service:

Section V Page Number

Balance Sheet (BS) V BS - 1

Statement of Net Cost (SNC) V SNC - 1

Statement of Changes in Net Position (SCNP) V SCNP - 1

Statement of Custodial Activity (SCA) V SCA - 1

Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) V SBR - 1

SF 133 and Schedule P: Report on Budget Execution 

and Budgetary Resources and Budget Program and 

Financing Schedule

V SF 133/Sch P - 1

Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

August 17, 1949

No. 53493.

protests 78955-K, etc. (New York).

#### Yardley & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

*151Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bottles the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Griffon Importing Co.*v. *United States*(36 C. C. P. A. 121, C. A. D. 408), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10705)

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3126-H.

(Decided April 1, 1964)

*Sharretts, Paley é Carter*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by counsel for the parties hereto:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeal to reappraisement enumerated above consists of wire strand exported from Japan on September 21, 1961; that *486wire strand is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary <j£':the ■Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; that on or immediately preceding the date of exportation of each shipment of wire strand covered by the appeal to reappraisement ■enumerated above, the prices at which wire strand, such as or similar to the wire strand described on the invoices covered by the instant appeal to reappraise■ment was freely sold, or in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal market of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $249. per metric ton for wire strand *%"*diameter (United States funds).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal to reappraisement enumerated above is submitted for decision upon this stipulation and. the entry file covered by such appeal.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here iñ question and that such value was $249 .per metric ton for wire strand %-inch diameter (United States funds).

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 11346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04737]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver for Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance at 
Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort Worth, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a 
proposal to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to 
nonaeronautical use and to authorize the conversion of the airport 
property. The proposal consists of one parcel of land containing a 
total of approximately 2.583.
    The property was acquired using City and FAA funds through the AIP 
Program from 1983-1987. The land comprising this parcel is outside the 
forecasted need for aviation development and, thus, is no longer needed 
for indirect or direct aeronautical use. The airport wishes to develop 
this land for compatible commercial, nonaeronautical use. The income 
from the conversion of this parcel will benefit the aviation community 
by reinvestment in the airport.
    Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially 
assist in the conversion of the subject airport property nor a 
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The 
disposition of proceeds from the conversion of the airport property 
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the 
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February 
16, 1999. In accordance with Section 47107(h) of Title 49, United 
States Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal 
Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires 
the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this document to Mr. Cameron Bryan, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Acting Manager, Texas Airports Development 
Office, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Welstead, Aviation Director, 
City of Fort Worth, 4201 N. Main St. Suite 200, Fort Worth, TX 76106, 
telephone (817) 392-5400, or Mr. Anthony Mekhail, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Texas Airports Development Program Manager, 10101 
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5663, FAX 
(817) 222-5989. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at 
the above locations.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on 15 January, 2016.
Ignacio Flores,
Manager, Airports Division, FAA, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-04737 Filed 3-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
```
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

124) ll-E-84 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:07 AM Sheet 124 of 264 
P.2 

htB-aj-87 THU 10:51 DIAMOND FIBERGLASS 

02/20/97 11:19 Q19199410234 

FAX NO. 5125730451 

PBS RIP NC 

P. 01/01 

(2002/002 

A 945 2 

II.-E-57 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Contact Report 

Plastic Composites NESHAP 

Greg LaFlam, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

November 4,1996 

Mr. Gene Bcnker, President 

Diamond Fiberglass Fabricators, Victoria, TX 

Telephone Number* (512) 572-4040 

Contact Summary: 

Asked Diamond Fiberglass whether the reference in their screening survey response to 

"internal mix systems" for their chop-hoop winder and chopper guns indicated that they use an 

enclosed mixing process for their resin matrix. Mr. Benkcr said that the facility does not do any 

mixing of filler into the resin, although small amounts of additives may be used. The described 

mix systems are used to mix catalyst into the resin as the resin passes through the spray gun. 

REPORT IS ACCURATE £* &~JL
December 19, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ANDRE JAMAL SLOAN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00514

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this c ourt holds that there was no error in the judgment. The c ourt orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. 61785.

#### The Borregaard Co., Inc., and F. L. Kraemer & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 298905-K, etc. (New York).

*510Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 267, C. D. 1834), the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, assessing duty upon the basis of the unit appraised value per conditioned pound or kilo, multiplied by the total number of conditioned pounds or kilos, as set forth in the invoices.
Exhibit 12
                                                                                
                                                                                
                  INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INCORPORATED
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                        
                              (Dollars in Millions)
                                        
                                    1998      1997      1996      1995      1994
                                    ----      ----      ----      ----      ----


1. EARNINGS

 a) Income before interest expense,
    income tax, extraordinary
    item and undistributed
    equity earnings (2)......  $  466.6  $  439.0  $  419.1  $  416.0  $  220.7
    
 b) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1)......       4.1       2.6       2.7       2.3       8.7
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 1(a) and 1(b).....  $  470.7  $  441.6  $  421.8  $  418.3  $  229.4
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
2. FIXED CHARGES

 a) Total interest expense
    including capital
    lease obligations........  $   17.4  $   17.5  $   16.1  $   17.4  $   17.3
    
 b) Capitalized interest.....       0.8       0.8       1.0       0.6       0.7


 c) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1)......       4.1       2.6       2.7       2.3       8.7
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 2(a) through 2(c).  $   22.3  $   20.9  $   19.8  $   20.3  $   26.7
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
FIXED CHARGES.................    21.11     21.13     21.30     20.61      8.59
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========


(1)  One-third of rental expense is considered to be the amount representing
     return on capital.
     
(2)  The results for 1995 reflect a $36.9 million pretax credit primarily
     from settlement gains resulting from lump sum pension payments from the
     pension plan to former employees who left the business in the
     nonmanagement work force restructuring.  Results for 1994 reflect a
     $93.5 million pretax charge associated with the nonmanagement work force
     restructuring.
Before the First Division,

March 15, 1946

No. 50946.

#### Protest 75613-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shaving sets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kempner*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 173, C. D. 820), the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-7159 ROBERT B. WISTER,

Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in

08-0196, Chief Judge William P. Greene, Jr. Before GAJARSA, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Robert B. Wister and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs each respond to the court's order concerning whether Robert B. Wister's appeal should be dismissed as premature. Wister submits a supplemental response. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims entered an order denying Wister's motion to strike the Secretary's designation of the record on July 10, 2008. Wister filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the July 10 order. Because it appeared that the July 10 order was not a final decision, this court directed Wister to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as premature. Wister responds that the court has authority to review the order on appeal pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 301 and 706. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 301, the head of anexecutive department may prescribe regulations. 5 U.S.C. § 706 sets forth the scope of

review of certain agency actions. Neither provision provides this court with jurisdiction to review interlocutory decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This court's jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing final decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. In this case, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has not issued a final decision. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The appeal is dismissed. Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT



### FEB 6 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Robert B. Wister Christopher A. Bowen, Esq. s17 FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT FEB 0 6 2009
Al t) iTOHISHLY CLERK

2008-7159 2
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Jostens, Inc. of our report dated February 2, 1999, included in the 1998 Annual
Report to Shareholders of Jostens, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Jostens, Inc listed
in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion,
the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation
to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Jostens Inc.'s Registration
Statement Number 33-40233 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Post-effective Amendment Number 1 to Registration Statement Number 2-95076,
33-19308, 33-58414, 333-00713, 333-13221, 333-13223, 333-56455, and 333-72347)
of our report dated February 2, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Jostens, Inc.

                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 31, 1999
# sec5

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2017-06	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SBR - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2017
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Carlson, Michael CTR (FAA) Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 2:47 PM To: Troutman, Jake (FAA) Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA) Subject: Documented conversation with KSU - Kurt Carraway

Jake,

Per our discussion earlier, I attempted to contact the Kansas State University Petitioner and left a voicemail for Mr. Mark Blanks who is the UAS Program Manager.

At 1441 hours on 23 June 2015 my call was returned by Mr. Kurt Carraway who is the UAS Flight Operations Manager at Kansas State University.

The subject of the conversation was the petitioner (Kansas State University's Standard Operating Procedures SOP) and the fact that the FAA would like to have it as part of their anal ysis of the petition because it is referenced in the petition.

The result of the conversation is that Mr. Kurt Carraway will send the SOP which is a confidential document to the address which Jake Troutman provided them for their other confidential documents.

That was the end of the conversation.

Thanks again for your help with this,

Mike

Michael Carlson / SAIC UAS Subject Matter Expert III - NexGen Initiatives Support Services Contract Flight Technologies and Procedures Division - UAS Integration Office Email: michael.CTR.carlson@faa.gov Direct: 202-651-2441